Republican Rep. Judy Biggert wanted to add an amendment to increase specific protections for LGBT victims of domestic violence, but House leadership blocked her from introducing the amendment.Well republicans??

Oh, you know- Domestic violence against lgbt victims isn't that important when we have bigger things to worry about it. We don't have time right now to protect people against violence.

And the conservaposse here cheers the Right Wingers in Congress they support, and that they encourage that we support as well. What does logic tell us about the conservaposse, regarding gay civil rights?

southbeach1500 saidAny "Violence Against (fill in the blank) Act" is meaningless at preventing violence against the group mentioned in the title.

It's just "feel good" legislation to make the weak-minded feel "safer" - and for politicians to point to proudly saying that they have taken steps towards "stopping violence against (fill in the blank)."

If you believe that, then is that the reason Republicans in the house passed a bill but did not include the lgbt language in the Senate version of the bill that had already passed? They excluded lgbt's because it was just a "feel good" bill?

southbeach1500 saidAny "Violence Against (fill in the blank) Act" is meaningless at preventing violence against the group mentioned in the title.

It's just "feel good" legislation to make the weak-minded feel "safer" - and for politicians to point to proudly saying that they have taken steps towards "stopping violence against (fill in the blank)."

If you believe that, then is that the reason Republicans in the house passed a bill but did not include the lgbt language in the Senate version of the bill that had already passed? They excluded lgbt's because it was just a "feel good" bill?

southbeach1500 saidAny "Violence Against (fill in the blank) Act" is meaningless at preventing violence against the group mentioned in the title.

It's just "feel good" legislation to make the weak-minded feel "safer" - and for politicians to point to proudly saying that they have taken steps towards "stopping violence against (fill in the blank)."

If you believe that, then is that the reason Republicans in the house passed a bill but did not include the lgbt language in the Senate version of the bill that had already passed? They excluded lgbt's because it was just a "feel good" bill?

My point is that this isn't a Republican vs Democrat point, which is why I used the word "politicians" in my post.

LGBT people won't suffer any more (or less) from not being included in this "Act."

So something like providing grants for transitional housing to allow those in domestic violence situations to escape their dangerous living situations is nothing? Or legal aid for those in domestic violence situations that cannot afford it on their own? Or services for those in rural areas that are often left out of services found in urban and suburban areas? That's all nothing?

southbeach1500 saidAny "Violence Against (fill in the blank) Act" is meaningless at preventing violence against the group mentioned in the title.

It's just "feel good" legislation to make the weak-minded feel "safer" - and for politicians to point to proudly saying that they have taken steps towards "stopping violence against (fill in the blank)."

If you believe that, then is that the reason Republicans in the house passed a bill but did not include the lgbt language in the Senate version of the bill that had already passed? They excluded lgbt's because it was just a "feel good" bill?

My point is that this isn't a Republican vs Democrat point, which is why I used the word "politicians" in my post.

LGBT people won't suffer any more (or less) from not being included in this "Act."

So something like providing grants for transitional housing to allow those in domestic violence situations to escape their dangerous living situations is nothing? Or legal aid for those in domestic violence situations that cannot afford it on their own? Or services for those in rural areas that are often left out of services found in urban and suburban areas? That's all nothing?

Gee ask SB why they passed an act for "women" in the first place? I thought violence was against the law for everyone.. so what was this about? "feel good" bill? or a waste of time seeing that women are already covered under our 'existing' violence laws.

Well, if you took this yammering twit -- who seems to be the G.O.P's go-to gal for basically pointing and screaming "Democrats did it!" every time she gets asked about the party's downgrading of women on TV -- at her word, then protections for gays and even Native American women are "separate issues" to be dealt with accordingly.

We don't wanna go changing the definition of domestic abuse. It might confuse the children.

Well, if you took this yammering twit -- who seems to be the G.O.P's go-to gal for basically pointing and screaming "Democrats did it!" every time she gets asked about the party's downgrading of women on TV -- at her word, then protections for gays and even Native American women are "separate issues" to be dealt with accordingly.

We don't wanna go changing the definition of domestic abuse. It might confuse the children.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). She's basically the party's on-camera apologist, one of several female members it's using to put a more female-friendly face on its policy.

The thing is: she's terrible at it. You know how when someone's bullshitting you they pause and take a breath, conveying "I can't believe I'm actually saying this?". She can't help it, plus she physically turns her body rightward when she's lying or evading a question. She's got more giveaway tells than the worst poker play you've ever seen.